Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd
A rescuer who is injured in trying to rescue someone from a danger created by the defendant's negligence can recover damages, and is not treated as having consented to the risk.
Facts
A firm of builders, TE Hopkins, used a petrol driven pump to clear water from a well, which filled the well with carbon monoxide fumes. Two of its workmen went down the well, contrary to instructions, and were overcome by the fumes. Dr Baker, a local doctor, was called, and went down the well on a rope to try to rescue them, although he was warned not to. He too was overcome by the fumes and died, as did the workmen. His widow sued the builders.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the builders were liable for Dr Baker's death. It was foreseeable that, if the builders' negligence put the workmen in danger, someone would try to rescue them, so the builders owed a duty of care to the rescuer. Willmer LJ said that a rescuer who acts reasonably to save life is not regarded as consenting to the risk, because he acts under the compulsion of his duty, legal or moral, and the defence of volenti did not apply. Dr Baker had not acted unreasonably, so he was not contributorily negligent.
Related cases on defences and damages
- Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509
- Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, [2009] 1 AC 1339
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
- Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, [2021] AC 563
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
- Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5, [2015] 2 All ER 805
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
